To the Editor of the Crimson:

It might be well to re-examine the naivete which Mr. Lear attributes to the Crimson.

1. Hitler would never agree to a proposal not to his own benefit. Correct.

2. First, by feeding the conquered peoples we avert the hate that those peoples will feel for us if we starve them. Obviously, this is our gain--not Hitler's. But Hitler must agree to the plan because if he does not the same hate will be turned on him. Second, would it be possible for Goebbels to say, "America approves the new order" when America is at war with Germany?

3. Such an argument as Mr. Lear states now is specious, but the fact is that the British have distinguished themselves in the last few years neither for intelligence nor breadth of concern. There is little reason to believe they have suddenly turned impeccable in these respects.

4. It is possible that Wilhelmina and Haakon prefer to let their people starve. More probably, however, their feelings have been silenced by their British hosts. The French Ambassador has shown concern which we cannot overlook.

5. It is perfectly clear, I think, that the Germans prefer guns to butter--at any cost--and they will continue in their preference even if all Europe starves.

6. Probably the Germans will take the potatoes anyway whether wheat is sent or not. The end justifies the means. It is true, however, that feeding France will relieve Hitler of a responsibility and increase German supplies. But we must choose between a generation of Europe that is dwindled in numbers, malformed in mind and limb that remembers the Allies as their false friends, and a generation more numerous at least, and healthy and prepared to work for democracy, whence came their help. Holmes H. Welch.